Corneal confocal microscopy demonstrates axonal loss in different courses of multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Axonal loss is the main determinant of disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). This study aimed to assess the utility of corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) in detecting corneal axonal loss in different courses of MS. The results were confirmed by two independent segmentation methods. 72 subjects (144 eyes) [(clinically isolated syndrome (n = 9); relapsing–remitting MS (n = 20); secondary-progressive MS (n = 22); and age-matched, healthy controls (n = 21)] underwent CCM and assessment of their disability status. Two independent algorithms (ACCMetrics; and Voxeleron deepNerve) were used to quantify corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) (ACCMetrics only), corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) and corneal nerve fractal dimension (CNFrD). Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation with 95% confidence interval (CI). Compared to controls, patients with MS had significantly lower CNFD (34.76 ± 5.57 vs. 19.85 ± 6.75 fibers/mm2, 95% CI − 18.24 to − 11.59, P < .0001), CNFL [for ACCMetrics: 19.75 ± 2.39 vs. 12.40 ± 3.30 mm/mm2, 95% CI − 8.94 to − 5.77, P < .0001; for deepNerve: 21.98 ± 2.76 vs. 14.40 ± 4.17 mm/mm2, 95% CI − 9.55 to − 5.6, P < .0001] and CNFrD [for ACCMetrics: 1.52 ± 0.02 vs. 1.45 ± 0.04, 95% CI − 0.09 to − 0.05, P < .0001; for deepNerve: 1.29 ± 0.03 vs. 1.19 ± 0.07, 95% − 0.13 to − 0.07, P < .0001]. Corneal nerve parameters were comparably reduced in different courses of MS. There was excellent reproducibility between the algorithms. Significant corneal axonal loss is detected in different courses of MS including patients with clinically isolated syndrome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".